Moral tone about slots a tad tiring

Wednesday

Apr 10, 2013 at 6:00 AM

Clive McFarlane

Iget it.

If one were to go by the apparent consensus at the city’s first public hearing on slot parlors, a lot of people don’t like them. What I don’t get, however, is the self-righteous pronouncements by some in trying to hitch their dislike of gambling parlors to some moral community calling.

“How do we mitigate urban blight À la Atlantic City when people who would be spending money on Shrewsbury Street are now spending it getting food and alcohol at a slot parlor?” asked Ed Moynihan, one of the many residents who spoke at the hearing. “How do you mitigate double the personal bankruptcy rate? How do you mitigate the sorrow of a child that loses a mother or father to suicide? How do you mitigate the civic corruption of our life when public officials set unsubstantiated rules of job creation and economic growth? Only one way to mitigate this and that is to instruct the city manager to say no to Mr. Bluhm.”

Mr. Moynihan wasn’t the only speaker who seemed to suggest that pulling the plug on the proposal would cure all of Worcester’s gambling-related ills — homelessness, suicide, crime, prostitution etc.

The Research Bureau noted the following in a report opposing the slot parlor. “The number of compulsive gamblers, suicide rates, and divorce rates all increase in the vicinity of casinos, resulting in an increased need for social services.”

I would make the case, however, that every ill these speakers fear is already here, which makes me think perhaps they are less worried about curing gambling addiction, and more afraid that a slot parlor will bring our gambling addicts out into the open, which would bother their conscience and put cracks in the protective wall they have built around their “good life.”

Victor Ortiz, intervention and treatment support director with the Massachusetts Council on Compulsive Gambling, probably raised some eyebrows when he suggested during Monday’s hearing that Worcester had the highest percentage of pathological gamblers in Massachusetts.

Mr. Ortiz was unwilling to expand on his assertion Tuesday, saying that his agency will soon be releasing a report substantiating his claim. He did note, however, that Worcester and Central Massachusetts as a whole have no resources for problem gamblers.

“Gambling addiction across the state has been marginalized as a hidden addiction, and as we look to expand gambling, we should also look to build the resources and capacity to help those who need it,” he said.

Ironically, when it comes to intervention for the problem gambler, it is the gambling industry that is making the overture. The state’s gambling legislation, for example, contains among other things, an “exclusion list” to prevent gambling addicts from entering casinos, onsite space for compulsive gambling counseling, and a public health trust fund to address compulsive gambling.

On Monday night, one speaker referred to such overtures by the gambling industry as blood money. That may be so, but how do we characterize the neglect and ambivalence with which problem gamblers have all along been treated in this community?

Where were Monday night’s speakers when Massachusetts cut from this year’s fiscal budget $560,000 that supported treatment and prevention programs for compulsive gamblers?

Where were these speakers when Central Massachusetts’ only outpatient program for problem gamblers was scrapped as part of the state’s decision to de-fund the former Willis Center?

If you have to speak out against gambling, I respect your right to do so, but please don’t bore me with self-righteous statements of how you care about the fate of our poor gambling addicts. If you did, you would have done something about it before now.